Talk:Battle of Talbot
May be pre-war military actions where few warships were engaged should be described as "incidents", not a "battles"? (the same thing for Basilisk incident in 1901 PD). However I am not sure how it was later refered in books.--dotz 09:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC) :I guess it depends on what you consider the "opening shots" of the war. But I suppose we could relabel this as an "incident". Jabrwock 14:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::As far as I remember there was no oficial declaration of war in 1905 PD, so in the "northern" region regular war was beginned with destruction of RMN picket in Seaford Nine space and attack against the RMN Hancock station. Another example of "incidents period" were Andermani provocations in Silesia during 1919 or 1920 PD. Second (but not quite exact) criterion to describe an incident is engaged ships number - Therekov's performance in the Monica System with no doubts was a heavy battle.--dotz 15:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::: As was Tiberian, both had no direct connection to the war, so that is hardly an argument. Tiberian - as well as Basilisk - also was even "smaller" where it came to the number of ships deployed and destroyed. We could decide this from case to case, but Talbot seems more like a battle to me than an "incident"... -- SaganamiFan 17:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Agreed. I guess "incident" would be more things like their attacks only involved warships vs. infrastructure, or transports (although they could also be called raids). Battles would be where at least two warships actively engaged each other (so it would exclude events where one challenged the other, but neither side fired a shot). Jabrwock 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC) :::::We don't have to decide it now. We can decide it from case to case also. If we use word "incident" for warships vs. infrastructure, or transports actions I will still need to distinguish small military event not occured during the war. Well, all that Talbot stuff is hard to classify for me - SD vs 4BC on the one hand seems to be very serious, but on the other hand battle was quick and it wasn't official war.--dotz 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::SD vs. 4 BC would be more a "massacre" than a battle. But on the other hand, the 4 BCs were expecting to ambush a cruiser. ;) Battles can still happen outside a "war", see Talbott, First Marsh, or Carson. We could have some kind of "infobox" template that would indicate if a particular battle was included in a "war" or outside the scope of it. Jabrwock 20:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::Well, I suggest war condition as secondary criterion, the most important one for me is number of warships of course. Battle of Talbott?, Monica? And who attacked Solies in Fairley Crossing :)?--dotz 22:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::Are we putting the criterion on the engagements? Basilisk has been referred many times in the books as the First Battle of Basilisk. We should leave it as they are called in the books rather than put our connotation. Unless it is referred differently in a later book. --Farragut79 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC) :::Right, as I said earlier I am wasn't sure how it was later refered in books.--dotz 07:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC) battle template it was de facto war - may be Talbot/Poicters should be placed there, together with operation perseus. --dotz 22:32, January 9, 2010 (UTC) 1904 PD? --dotz 23:03, January 30, 2010 (UTC)